Confidence coach Regina Bonds thinks that flirting in real life is a lost art.

“In this new world of dating, everybody’s behind a computer screen,” she says. “So many people don’t know how to put themselves out there.”

If talking to a cute stranger makes your palms sweat, but you’d like to meet someone without the help of a dating app, Bonds has advice. “Get out there and be confident,” she says.

Bonds, a certified life coach based in Atlanta, helps clients assert themselves in love and relationships. She shares four common fears people have when approaching a romantic interest in the wild — and how to overcome them.

The situation: You’re afraid they won’t like you.

The solution: Practice self-love. 

“The first romance needs to be with you,” Bonds says. If you’re too nervous or afraid to talk to someone because you don’t think you’d be a good romantic partner, build up your self-esteem.

Try saying a positive mantra in front of the mirror that affirms your worth. “Tell yourself you’re the type of person someone would love to be around,” Bonds says.

Then, tell yourself some of the things you like about yourself and your body, even if that feels hard. Maybe it’s your freckles, your curves or your eyelashes. “That creates such a momentum when it comes to confidence,” Bonds says.

The situation: You want to show interest but don’t want to be creepy.

The solution: Start with eye contact. 

It’s a simple and effective way to show interest, and it can help determine whether an approach is welcome, Bonds says.

Let’s say you’re in the freezer aisle of the supermarket and you see someone you like. Go ahead and make eye contact. If they look back at you and smile, that’s a promising sign, Bonds says. “You can walk over to them. That’s not creepy.”

However, if they look away when you try to make eye contact, that’s probably a signal to push your shopping cart in the other direction.

And if you do start talking to someone and they tell you they’re not interested, or their body language shows they’re uncomfortable, leave them be.

Not sure how to engage with a cutie at the coffee shop? Pay them a compliment.

lucky sun/Getty Images

Advertisement

hide caption

toggle caption

lucky sun/Getty Images

Advertisement

The situation: You want to strike up a conversation but have no idea what to say.

The solution: Pay them a compliment. 

You’re pretty sure that cutie you always see at the coffee shop is interested in you too. Now what?

Don’t worry about being the first person to make a move. When it comes to dating, there are no rules, Bonds says.

Say something nice about their eyes, their outfit or their coffee order. Or, if you’re feeling cheeky, try a pickup line like, “I haven’t seen a smile like that all summer long,” Bonds says. “That can open the door to an amazing conversation.”

If your banter is holding up the coffee line, go ahead and grab those digits. It doesn’t have to be awkward, Bonds says. “I would say something as gentle as, ‘I’m really enjoying this, but I have to go. Would you like to exchange information?’ “

The situation: They didn’t call you back.

The solution: Be proud of putting yourself out there. 

You made a bold move at a bar last weekend and asked someone for their number. You felt like you both connected. But it’s been a few days and they haven’t reached out.

“If they don’t call you, that’s OK,” Bonds says. Don’t let it affect your self-worth. “What someone else thinks of you [should not] be what you think of you.”

Remember that you took a risk and tried something scary. “Be thankful for the experience. Whoever’s meant for you will find you,” Bonds says.

The producer of this episode is Margaret Cirino. This story was edited by Meghan Keane. The visual editor is Beck Harlan. We’d love to hear from you. Leave us a voicemail at 202-216-9823, or email us at LifeKit@npr.org.

Listen to Life Kit on Apple Podcasts and Spotify, and sign up for our newsletter. Follow us on Instagram: @nprlifekit.

In June, Anna Wintour announced she was stepping away from her editor-in-chief role at Vogue — a position she’d held for nearly 40 years. The decision came as a surprise — and indicated a major moment of transition and succession in the magazine world.

“People no longer read print magazines the way they used to,” says New York Times correspondent Michael Grynbaum. “And Vogue, it still is a global brand — it still has recognition around the world. But now there are thousands of influencers and social media channels where people get ideas about dressing and glamor and clothing and taste.”

In a new book, Grynbaum explores how Condé Nast publications were the arbiters of taste for decades in the U.S. “They were the tastemakers, they were the gatekeepers,” Grynbaum says. He says Condé Nast today is a husk of its former self — thanks in part to shifting tastes, and social media, which has provided a platform for celebrities and influencers.

Grynbaum’s new book is called Empire of the Elite: Inside Condé Nast, the Media Dynasty That Reshaped America. He says he was curious about how “one of the great cultural institutions of 20th century America … such a powerful group of cultural tastemakers could so miss the changes in our culture and end up in this attenuated state that they’re in today.”

Interview highlights

On Condé Nast as the tastemaker

Condé Nast was … a group of self-appointed experts who worked in an office building in Manhattan, and they were the arbiters. … Here’s the movie you should be watching this month; Here’s a book you should be thinking about; Here’s a new celebrity that you should be tracking. This was a one-way street. Condé Nast was kind of built on this idea of authority. …

That was the presiding philosophy of the company going back to its founding in 1909. … Vogue magazine was created by a New York society set to essentially say: Here are the rules for being an elite person in New York City, an elite in America at the turn of the 20th century. And that really infused these magazines right up until, I would argue, the last 10, 15 years.

On the company’s longtime focus on luxury and consumption

The company’s history kind of goes back to the Gilded Age, which is when there first was an American leisure class, when there was a new group of Americans who were socially mobile, upwardly mobile, who had disposable income for the first time and were looking to find ways to express themselves through clothing, through interior decorating. So the company has a long history of appealing to this kind of upper middle brow audience. In the 1980s, this was the Gordon Gekko Wall Street era … a time when people were celebrating materialism, were celebrating consumption.

On the glamorous lifestyle of editors in Condé Nast’s heyday

I call them influencers before influencers. The idea was that the editor-in-chief, their entire life should be a top-to-bottom marketing campaign for their magazine and for Condé Nast, the company. … If you were editor-in-chief of a Condé Nast magazine, you had a full-time black town car on demand, usually with a driver that would take you out to any event you needed to go, wait for you on the sidewalk, pick you up, bring you home. You would fly first class to Europe or anywhere you need to go for travel. A lot of people had wardrobe allowances. If you were at the fashion magazines, I talked to editors who would come in with a $40,000 annual clothing allowance, and that was considered modest by Condé Nast standards back then. … To wear out at events, to meet with advertisers, to be out at fashion shows, to essentially wear the flag of Condé Nast, to project this idea that we were the best of the best, and you better listen to what we have to say.

On Condé Nast’s razor thin margins 

All of the spending to outsiders seemed irrational and made no sense. … There was an internal logic to it, which is that Condé Nast was kind of predicated on a myth. And the entire organization for many years, it was built around propagating this idea that they were untouchable, that there was a mystique to everyone in this charmed company. And that’s what made readers want to subscribe to own a piece of that fantasy land. And it made the advertisers from luxury brands want to buy pages in these magazines, because they felt that they could make their products part of the fantasy. …Their profits were so razor thin. I mean, they were just barely in the black. And this is back when magazines were a hugely lucrative and profitable business. Condé Nast, they just spent. They spent on photo shoots. They felt that waste was an important part of creativity. That was one of the guiding maxims within the company.

On Anna Wintour putting celebrities on the cover of Vogue

Back in the ’80s, fashion was a very small, insular world. It really wasn’t part of our popular culture. Anna Wintour, when she took over Vogue, she started putting celebrities on the cover of the magazine. And I mean, that’s so common now. I didn’t even realize there was a time when that wasn’t true. …

Anna Wintour put Madonna on an early cover of her magazine, which a lot of the traditionalists actually were furious about. Because at the time, Madonna was seen as this controversial and sort of vulgar character. And Anna said that she’s one of the biggest celebrities of the world, and we’re going to dress her in a way that we felt was appropriate to Vogue magazine. And it was a huge, huge seller.

And that starts a period where celebrities start to really fill the pages of Vogue. And at the same time, fashion itself becomes celebrated. Fashion itself becomes, it gets up there with music and film, and it’s one of the, I guess, the popular arts that we follow. So that rise of fashion paralleled Anna’s own rise in prominence. It was kind of a mutually beneficial phenomenon.

On the way GQ, under editor Art Cooper, changed men’s style in the ’80s and ’90s

I talked to a lot of editors who worked back then — they were almost tricking straight men into reading a magazine about clothing and about grooming. So they would have bikini models and sex columns and sorts of things you might find in Playboy or another magazine like that. And in between, there’d be these literary articles about a double-breasted versus a single-breasted suit and what the best kind of socks you could wear to a party or a wedding. And it was like a system of sneaking in menswear into a straight man’s magazine. And it really took off, it was a phenomenon. It had a huge readership. That was a pretty major sea change in the way that men thought about clothes. … It was the start of “metrosexuality.” … Nowadays, think about the menswear influencers that we see on TikTok and Instagram. Think about athletes, the basketball stars who show off their brand new Thom Browne suits when they’re walking to the locker room. So I really trace a lot of that change to what happened at GQ under Condé Nast.

On what Tina Brown, former editor of Vanity Fair and The New Yorker, called “the mix”

The high-low blend is so absorbed into our media today that it’s almost hard to believe it didn’t exist back then. … Back in the early ’80s when there were only so many magazines and newspapers that we consumed, most of them were very specifically focused. And so you might get Time magazine to find out what happened in the news that week. You might read the Atlantic Monthly for something more literary. …

Tina Brown … created this blend where you would have a smart political profile about Gary Hart, who was trying to be the vice presidential candidate in 1984, and then a beautiful Annie Leibovitz photograph spread of, say, Daryl Hannah, and then a short story by Norman Mailer or Gore Vidal. And this was really unlike anything that was in the market back then. Readers hadn’t really experienced something like this. The fact that she blended high and low, popular culture, high culture, politics, celebrity, true crime. … It was all there in this beautifully packaged pulp and ink product that arrived through your mail slot once a month — and that was the zeitgeist.

On The New Yorker succeeding with the paywall model

It’s kind of an amazing turnaround because The New Yorker was starting to lose money when Condé Nast bought it. … The Newhouse family, which still controls Condé Nast, I really think they see The New Yorker as an heirloom. And I think they take very seriously their role as the stewards of it. [Editor] David Remnick encouraged the family to invest in an online website, and they introduced a paywall, a subscription service fairly early on compared to other magazines. … It really is a success story that is now one of the Condé magazines that, at least as of a few years ago, was turning a profit. I like to think of this as a nice sign about the enduring power of the written word, that great writing, great editing still has an audience, a devoted audience that’s willing to pay for it.

Sam Briger and Anna Bauman produced and edited this interview for broadcast. Molly Seavy-Nesper and Beth Novey adapted it for the web.